Now to apply it…

Thanks Siobhan!

This is pretty much my point – anything that can’t be reduced to the methodology you’re describing is not worth thinking about, it isn’t philosophy. And since I’m not actually interested in that I’m not doing philosophy. Which is sad, because I love philosophy.

And of course neither male and female academics have a monopoly on aggression – I’ve encountered it from both sides. I’m not saying men are aggressive and women are lovely, I’m saying that the power structures in academia and in philosophy are gendered. You can cite who you want at me, I’m sure I could counter-cite with quotes from equally intelligent people and we could go round in circles.

The claim that social structures of any kind determine social behaviour is controversial. Many philosophers and social scientists (e.g. Jon Elster and Dan Sperber) reject it. This doesn’t mean it’s false to claim that structures determine behaviour, of course. But the claim needs to be argued for and those arguments need to be evaluated for virtues like soundness, validity and explanatory power. I emphasize that this was all that I, Pete and Scott were doing in this case.

This is part of a process of sifting out better from worse arguments that is essential for any kind of intellectual life. If you eliminate that you eliminate philosophy in favour of (I don’t know what – the sublime recapitulation of hallowed texts or ludic variations on the same? I can’t think of anything more disgustingly patriarchal).

Neither male nor female academics have a monopoly on aggression in my experience. As it happens, I’ve had some bruising and alienating encounters with academics of both genders. However, these experiences were never the result of a participating in a good natured, open discussion.

Best wishes,

David

What bothers me is that the accepted mode of doing philosophy is totally gendered. This doesn’t simply mean the combative style that’s adopted by many people. Given that women have only been permitted to attend University since last century, it’s hardly controversial to say that the power structures that they are entering into are still predominantly masculine. This is exacerbated by the fact that the history of philosophy is by-and-large written by men. So as a woman trying to make it in the philosophy academic world you’ve got the double-whammy of with two power structures, intertwined, that you’ve got to deal with. Of course there are women who do it successfully, but they’re often called “feminist thinkers”. Why can’t women do philosophy without it being gendered, whereas when men do it it’s neutral?

I don’t think men in philosophy (or elsewhere in life) really think about it all that much. After all, do you feel alienated by the structures you’re entering into on the basis of your gender? I suspect not. But since your discussion on your blog and most similar discussions are carried out by men, do you think that there might be something alienating about them to women? And since that’s often the way that philosophy is done, at least in the establishment, and how it is thought it should be carried out, is that not a problem? Or does that not matter?

I don’t think I’m being sexist, since I’m not actually saying that it’s just down to testosterone but actually to do with power structures that you and I and everyone else has inherited. But even if I am, I don’t care. Turns out I’ve been discriminated against for years and I didn’t even know it.

I’m not sure what your complaint about philosophy is. You may not have been interested in the debate on my website (fine – you were free not to read it) but it was a substantive debate about some difficult topics that Scott, Pete, myself and other people I respect do care about. It helped this “other Philosophy type person” think through some issues about the place of interpretationism and refine my understanding about other topics in an incremental way. I really don’t know how else philosophy can be done. If there’s no revealed truth, the only way we can test the adequacy of our theories is by looking at their internal consistency, consilience with wide knowledge and explanatory power.

This is often best achieved in the company of others and can also be a rather humbling experience. Being prepared to test your ideas in a civilized debate – and this one was consistently polite and good natured – requires a preparedness to accept the force of others argument. The idea that it stems from an overabundance of a certain steroid hormone in one’s testes is just conventionally sexist.

David Roden

If you look at the great philosophical correspondences of the 17th and 18th centuries, much of it seems better natured and driven by a genuine desire for knowledge. However, there were plainly still ‘trolls’ who just wanted to trip people up (e.g. Boxel to Spinoza).

I like that quote Says it all. I wonder what happened to Philosophy….. Or has it always been like this?